Rebuilding America’s Defenses

Posted: 20/09/2011 by zandtao in Finance, Insight, War

(added to NWO Plan page)

Following on from Pax Americana, a Think Tank established in 1997 came to the forefront. It was the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) featuring Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and others, and they produced a paper “Rebuilding America’s Defenses (RAD)” which formed the basis for Bush’s “National Security Strategy of the United States of America“.

Here are the PNAC’s statement of principles:-

June 3, 1997

American foreign and defense policy is adrift. Conservatives have criticized the incoherent policies of the Clinton Administration. They have also resisted isolationist impulses from within their own ranks. But conservatives have not confidently advanced a strategic vision of America’s role in the world. They have not set forth guiding principles for American foreign policy. They have allowed differences over tactics to obscure potential agreement on strategic objectives. And they have not fought for a defense budget that would maintain American security and advance American interests in the new century.

We aim to change this. We aim to make the case and rally support for American global leadership.

As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world’s preeminent power. Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievements of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?

We are in danger of squandering the opportunity and failing the challenge. We are living off the capital — both the military investments and the foreign policy achievements — built up by past administrations. Cuts in foreign affairs and defense spending, inattention to the tools of statecraft, and inconstant leadership are making it increasingly difficult to sustain American influence around the world. And the promise of short-term commercial benefits threatens to override strategic considerations. As a consequence, we are jeopardizing the nation’s ability to meet present threats and to deal with potentially greater challenges that lie ahead.

We seem to have forgotten the essential elements of the Reagan Administration’s success: a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United States’ global responsibilities.

Of course, the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its power. But we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global leadership or the costs that are associated with its exercise. America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests. The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of this century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership.

Our aim is to remind Americans of these lessons and to draw their consequences for today. Here are four consequences:

• we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global
responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;

• we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;

• we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;

• we need to accept responsibility for America’s unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.

Such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today. But it is necessary if the United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in the next.”

There was a recent discussion in which Thai expats were concerned that Americans were being tarnished with aggression. This is a statement of principle of a Think Tank whose paper, “RAD,” became the “National Security Strategy of the United States of America” – with adjustments. One has to be naive to see global democracy as an aim of people who can produce this document ie the corporatocracy through its governmental wing. It is noticeable that this policy begins as a reaction to the Clinton administration which it did not consider belligerent enough – “the essential elements of the Reagan Administration’s success: a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United States’ global responsibilities.” Note for the intentionally naive, or those politically motivated to not accept the truth, strong military and bold foreign policy stands for war. It is noticeable that Reagan is described as “military strength and moral clarity“, morality was not something I associated with Reagan when you consider actions in Central and Latin America, along with Irangate the Contras and many more. Would Nicaraguans consider Reagan moral or democratic?

In this William Rivers Pitt article, he discusses PNAC and RAD:-

The fundamental essence of PNAC’s ideology can be found in a White Paper produced in September of 2000 entitled “Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century.” In it, PNAC outlines what is required of America to create the global empire they envision. According to PNAC, America must:

* Reposition permanently based forces to Southern Europe, Southeast Asia and the Middle East;
* Modernize U.S. forces, including enhancing our fighter aircraft, submarine and surface fleet capabilities;
* Develop and deploy a global missile defense system, and develop a strategic dominance of space;
* Control the “International Commons” of cyberspace;
* Increase defense spending to a minimum of 3.8 percent of gross domestic product, up from the 3 percent currently spent.

Most ominously, this PNAC document described four “Core Missions” for the American military. The two central requirements are for American forces to “fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars,” and to “perform the ‘constabulary’ duties associated with shaping the security environment in critical regions.” Note well that PNAC does not want America to be prepared to fight simultaneous major wars. That is old school. In order to bring this plan to fruition, the military must fight these wars one way or the other to establish American dominance for all to see.

Can you see the War on Terror in this? “fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars“, doesn’t that describe the Middle East during the first term of George W Bush? Note, this was written in September 2000 – a year before 9/11 “surprised” the Bush administration, a year before the war machine started on its well-planned way to Afghanistan and then Iraq. “Simultaneous major theater wars.” On 20th September, 2001, the “National Security Strategy of the United States of America” was released – based on the PNAC’s “RAD.”

Let us consider one position stated early in the PNAC paper “At present the United States faces no global rival. America’s grand strategy should aim to preserve and extend this advantageous position as far into the future as possible. [p 8]” Is it acceptable for a global power to promote a bully’s charter? Again I say to those who would claim moral integrity for US foreign policy, please open your eyes – how can moral policy be based on a bully’s charter? To ensure that this charter works RAD states that there is a necessity for the government to facilitate “preserving the desirable strategic situation in which the United States now finds itself requires a globally preeminent military capability both today and in the future.” [p8]

And what are they going to preserve? “we saw the project as building upon the defense strategy outlined by the Cheney Defense Department in the
waning days of the Bush Administration.” [p9]
Pax Americana.

I would note 2 policies in the “National Security Strategy of the United States of America“.

Firstly V. Prevent Our Enemies from Threatening Us, Our Allies, and Our Friends with Weapons of Mass Destruction

“The gravest danger to freedom lies at the crossroads of radicalism and technology. When the spread of chemical and biological and nuclear weapons, along with ballistic missile technology—when that occurs, even weak states and small groups could attain a catastrophic power to strike great nations. Our enemies have declared this very intention, and have been caught seeking these terrible weapons. They want the capability to blackmail us, or to harm us, or to harm our friends—and we will oppose them with all our power.”

President Bush
West Point, New York
June 1, 2002
This was fundamental to the lies that predicated the War on Terror in Iraq.

Secondly VI. Ignite a New Era of Global Economic Growth through Free Markets and Free Trade

“When nations close their markets and opportunity is hoarded by a privileged few, no amount-no amount-of development aid is ever enough. When nations respect their people, open markets, invest in better health and education, every dollar of aid, every dollar of trade revenue and domestic capital is used more effectively.”

President Bush
Monterrey, Mexico
March 22, 2002
. This contains the seeds of the change of foreign policy that began in the second term of George W Bush presidency. The belligerence of himself and his hawks Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz left a complete unwillingness on the part of the world to promote economic growth with the US. Governments were choosing to have economic ties elsewhere as typified by the analysis of Mahmood Mamdani of the African economic direction (on Democracy Now Wednesday Sept 15, 2011):-

I have not completed a study of the RAD paper as it is not current policy, if there is a need to contrast current practice with Bush practice I know where to look.

  1. […] Rebuilding America’s Defenses […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.